The High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirms that its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC permit the quashing of FIRs in non-compoundable offences under BNS where parties have arrived at a genuine, voluntary compromise. This reaffirms and applies established Supreme Court and Full Bench principles, extending their operation to the Bharat Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), and thus serves as binding authority for subordinate courts in Haryana and Punjab.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/16044/2025 of ADITYA PRATAP AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR |
| CNR | PHHC010459142025 |
| Date of Registration | 20-03-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Full Bench in Kulwinder Singh (2007) and Supreme Court in Gian Singh (2012) |
| Type of Law | Criminal law — Inherent powers of the High Court; Quashing of FIRs; Compromise in non-compoundable offences under BNS |
| Questions of Law | Whether High Courts can quash FIRs and criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences under BNS based on a genuine, voluntary compromise between parties, using inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC is plenary and can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings even for non-compoundable offences under BNS, provided the compromise is genuine, voluntary, and not the result of coercion. This power is not limited to matrimonial or minor disputes. The authorities relied upon grant the Court wide latitude to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process, overriding the statutory bar against compounding in appropriate cases. A report from the Judicial Magistrate confirming genuineness of compromise and absence of other criminal antecedents or proclamation is relevant. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Kulwinder Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 (Full Bench); Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 543 (SC) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The distinction between statutory power to compound and inherent power to quash; importance of genuine, voluntary compromise; necessity to secure ends of justice or prevent abuse of process; no limitation to category of offence unless it affects public interest; Magistrate’s report as assurance of absence of impropriety. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | FIR No.0136 was registered under Sections 115, 190, 191(3), 351(2) of BNS at Krishana Gate Thanesar Police Station, Kurukshetra. Parties entered into a compromise dated 17.03.2025 which was verified as voluntary and genuine before the Magistrate. Neither accused were proclaimed offenders nor involved in any other FIR. The petition was filed to quash all proceedings based on this settlement. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | High Courts of other states; may be cited in other BNS-era criminal proceedings elsewhere |
| Follows | Kulwinder Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab (2007); Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC extend to non-compoundable offences under BNS, not just matrimonial disputes.
- The compounding bar under law does not restrict High Court’s inherent power to quash if compromise is genuine and justice demands.
- Verification of voluntary compromise and no objection by complainant, plus absence of criminal antecedents/proclaimed status, are key.
- Genuine compromise is sufficient for quashing, regardless of the offence type, unless general public interest is implicated.
- Magistrate’s report confirming compromise is a required procedural step and strong evidentiary basis for quashing.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the procedural history, noting that parties effected a compromise which was duly verified before the Magistrate, who reported the absence of coercion, undue influence, or other criminal involvement.
- Cited and applied the Full Bench precedent in Kulwinder Singh (2007), affirming that Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process or secure justice, including in non-compoundable cases.
- Relied on Gian Singh (2012, Supreme Court) which distinguishes compounding powers from inherent powers, confirming that inherent power is broader but subject to judicially evolved guidelines.
- The Court found no statutory bar preventing quashing in non-compoundable cases if the compromise is genuine, with the caveat that offences of a private nature permit this remedy.
- On facts, since the compromise was voluntary, parties had no objection, the accused had no criminal background, and the prosecution had no wider social impact, grounds existed for quashing.
- The Court concluded that continuing the proceedings would serve no useful purpose, and ends of justice would be best served by quashing the FIR and consequential proceedings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- Parties have settled the dispute amicably and executed a compromise dated 17.03.2025.
- The compromise is voluntary and without coercion.
- All accused have clean records; none have been declared proclaimed offenders.
- Prosecution continuation would constitute abuse of judicial process.
Respondent — State
- No objection raised to compromise after verification and Magistrate’s report.
Respondent No. 2 (Complainant)
- Confirms no objection to quashing in view of genuine compromise.
Factual Background
FIR No. 0136 was registered on 11.03.2025 at Police Station Krishana Gate Thanesar, Kurukshetra, under Sections 115, 190, 191(3), 351(2) of the Bharat Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The dispute was subsequently resolved by way of compromise dated 17.03.2025. Statements of all parties were recorded and the compromise was found to be genuine, voluntary, and without coercion. There was a total of ten accused, none of whom were proclaimed offenders or involved in other cases.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 CrPC: The judgment reaffirms that inherent powers under this provision are plenary and not confined by Section 320’s restrictions relating to compounding of offences.
- The BNS Sections involved (115, 190, 191(3), 351(2)) denote the relevant criminal charges but do not restrict the High Court’s inherent powers.
- No constitutional questions or reading down/up involved; the plain statutory language of Section 482 is applied with guidance from precedent.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Judicial Magistrate’s verification of the compromise as a necessary procedural step, ensuring genuineness and voluntariness, before quashing petition is entertained.
- Requirement that report includes verification of criminal antecedents (no proclaimed offender, no involvement in other FIRs).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment follows and reaffirms existing Full Bench and Supreme Court law on Section 482 CrPC in context of compromise-based quashing, including for non-compoundable offences under BNS.